Kodak Ektar's 100mm f3.5 vs. 100mm WF f6.3

[Wayne R. Scott]

After some horse trading and buying sprees I now have some Kodak Ektar f3.5 100mm lens elements and one set of elements in a Flash Supermatic shutter which I believe once was attached to a Kodak Medalist II. I see no easy way to use this shutter on a view camera.

I dug out a Kodak Ektar WF 100mm in a Graphic Flash Supermatic and swapped the lens elements from the Medalist Flash Supermatic shutter. They seemed to screw in just fine.

Do I now have a Heliar f6.3 100mm lens that will be usable as a view camera lens to cover 2x3? Can I use the same aperature scale from the Wide Field shutter from f6.3 to f32?

Is there any theoretical gain for using the Heliar lens design instead of the double Gauss for 6x7 color film?

I await the lens guru's advice.

Thanks,

Wayne

[Mark Sampson]

See another recent thread about the 100 WF Ektar. Dan Fromm posted a link to the Kodak lens charts (thanks Dan). It seems likely that the f/stops would be the same. Certainly the WF Ektar will have more coverage; which one is sharper, who knows? Make some tests and tell us.

[Dan Fromm]

Um, based on Chris Perez tests I think that the 100 WF Ektar will probably be sharper. The 100/3.5 just barely covers 2x3.

Not directly relevant, and I never asked the question properly, but I think my 80 WF Ektar is sharper than my first (sold long ago) 105/3.7 Ektar. Haven't tried my recently-purchased second 105/3.7 Ektar yet, have low hopes for it.

The big question is whether the 100/3.5 cells will be spaced properly in the "Graphic Flash Supermatic." Wayne, you should measure before doing more.

[Bernard Kaye]

The Kodak Medalist 100mm. f 3.5 Ektar was made for the Medalist, a 620 roll film camera that was an exercise in film flatness. I am looking at a 14 x 20" landscape print from a Kodak color 120 negative taken in a Medalist with Lumenized lens; the Medalist was modified to take 120 roll film: the lens fully covers 2 1/4 x 3 1/4", is sharp with truthful color, not "lolly pop over contrast." It was the Kodak negative film before Portra.
I left the negative at "Chrome," in Washington, D. C. with request to see if a good 14 x 20" or so could be made; that I would return that day. When I returned, the counter clerk told me that their chief separator wanted to see me. I thought it would be to tell me that he could not go that large.
He came out, asked what I took it with. I told him. He told me that he had never seen a Medalist but had heard about it, THAT HE COULD GO TO 20 X 30" or 30 x 40" or as large as a wall, that it was far sharper than most 4 x 5" and 5 x 7" and 8 x 10" negatives that he worked with day in day out.

Not only is the 100mm. f 3.5 coated Ektar good, the Medalist holds the film flat (for a roll film camera). I have no experience with the W.F. Ektar but pushed customers to seek film flatness and accuracy in alignment: lens, groundglass and film plane, when I was in photo retailing.

Using these Ektars can be a joy. They are a worthwhile investment. I have the landscapes to prove it.
Bernie